State v. Gustavo Chavez 2nd
Background
- Chavez was arrested for DUI after a truck incident; homeowner and police observed signs of intoxication. Chavez claimed a friend was driving and that friend testified at an Idaho Transportation Department ALS (Administrative License Suspension) hearing that he had been driving.
- The hearing officer heard the friend’s sworn testimony but did not question him; the friend was unavailable to testify at the criminal trial.
- At trial Chavez sought to admit the ALS hearing transcript under I.R.E. 804(b)(1) (former testimony exception). The magistrate excluded the transcript, ruling there was no cross-examination at the ALS hearing, and thus the exception did not apply.
- The magistrate also barred Chavez from testifying that his friend had appeared and testified at the ALS hearing (to prove the friend’s existence), reasoning this would be a backdoor for the excluded testimony.
- Chavez nevertheless mentioned the friend’s ALS testimony during cross-examination; the testimony was struck but the jury was not initially instructed to disregard it (later jury notes clarified the stricken testimony could not be considered).
- On intermediate appeal the district court reversed the magistrate, holding the magistrate used the wrong legal standard (focusing on actual cross-examination rather than opportunity to develop testimony), found insufficient factual findings, vacated the conviction, and remanded for proper 804(b)(1) analysis; this Court affirms the district court.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Chavez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ALS hearing transcript under I.R.E. 804(b)(1) (former testimony) | The State contends it was not a party to the ALS hearing and had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness there, so the former-testimony exception does not apply. | Chavez argues the friend was unavailable and the ALS hearing provided an opportunity to develop testimony under oath (satisfying 804(b)(1)), so the transcript should be admissible. | Court held the magistrate applied the wrong standard (required actual cross‑examination). Whether 804(b)(1) applies depends on factual findings (opportunity and similar motive to develop testimony), so remand for factfinding was proper. |
| Admission of testimony that the friend attended/testified at the ALS hearing (to prove existence) | The State did not object to a limited statement of presence but objected to any substantive content; it maintained the magistrate’s exclusion was not an abuse. | Chavez argued testimony that the friend appeared/testified is relevant and not a backdoor for the excluded transcript. | Court held the magistrate abused discretion in precluding testimony limited to the fact the friend appeared/testified; such limited testimony is permissible while barring substantive ALS testimony unless admissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 224 P.3d 480 (Idaho 2009) (standard of appellate review for magistrate findings and district court review)
- State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965, 318 P.3d 955 (Ct. App. 2014) (procedural rule that appellate courts review district-court decisions in magistrate appeals)
- State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 700, 889 P.2d 729 (Ct. App. 1994) (definition and general rules governing hearsay under Idaho law)